Welcome to the computing section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/C

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

February 17

soft line break

It's like a soft hyphen but invisible; you might put it after a slash. Open Office has it. WordPerfect had it twenty years ago. I can't find it in MS Word. —Tamfang (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've heard that term, meaning "here's a good place to put a line break, if you need one". Whether you need one would depend on the length of the line relative to the column or page margins. This went along with earlier markup language software that didn't render the text in the final format until later. However, modern software is moving more towards WYSIWYG, so it doesn't apply as much anymore. (Editing here is a notable example of where you don't see the final version until you save or do a preview. LaTeX is another example.) StuRat (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a notable example of where markup like soft line breaks could be useful, since the "final" version you see may not be the same one that other people (with a different size window) see. This is why, as well as the ordinary space character to produce an inter-word space that might become a line break, we also have   to produce an inter-word space that won't become a line break. Soft line breaks are less often wanted, but it's the same sort of idea of an appropriate level of control. --69.159.9.222 (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have an old (2003) version of Word, but it supports what it calls a "no-width optional break", which can be inserted from the menu Insert > Symbol ... Special Characters ... no-width optional break (near bottom of list). I would assume later versions have the same, although the menu path might be different. See "no-width optional break". -- Tom N talk/contrib 03:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In 2010 (Mac), it's not on the list! Grr. —Tamfang (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, I pasted it from a Unicode character table ("zero width non-joiner", U+200C). —Tamfang (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buying a refurbished computer w/o Windows but with a license key

If I buy a refurbished computer that comes without Windows installed but has a genuine Windows license key, and I have the CD for Windows 7 home premium (the corner of the box says "upgrade designed for Windows Vista"), can I install Windows from the CD and use the license key with the computer? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. The key on the sticker attached to the computer will only work with the exact version of Windows originally installed, which might well be a custom version produced for that manufacturer, even if you don't see any obvious differences. You would be able to install generic Windows, but it would fail to activate. Try looking on eBay for a recovery disc. Dell ones are easy to find. 94.12.66.248 (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two other potential problems are that your version of Windows 7 appears to be an upgrade, not the full product, and that I'd asume it is already installed on another computer: running a single copy of the OS on two computers is not permitted in the licensing rules.--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the legalities (both because this is the RD and because it depends precisely on how the refurbishment is carried out), for Windows 7 if it's OEM it's fairly likely to be be using SLIC 2.1. This means what you want is installation media for the full version of Windows 7 matching what the computer was licenced for. By version, I mean Ultimate, Home Premium or whatever. A different version may work, but it's not definite and definitely not likely to comply with any licence. If you have the right version, all you need are the certificate and OEM key which for any major OEM are trivial to find. Whether you add these manually or use any OEM installation media isn't going to make a difference to whether the OS works and is properly activated. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just having the key numbers doesn't mean you legally own the key. Somebody else (the previous owner, for example), may still be using that key on another PC, so if you try to use it, you will be blocked. StuRat (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

GIF

The GIF article states; "The 89a specification also supports incorporating text labels as text (not embedding them in the graphical data), but as there is little control over display fonts, this feature is not widely used."

Can you please show me an example of a GIF image with a text label that is not part of the graphical data? I've never seen one before. Thanks. 109.207.58.2 (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likely to be difficult. This page says "The GIF89 specification allows you to specify text captions to be overlayed on the following image. This feature never took off; browsers and image-processing applications such as Photoshop ignore it" so unless we can find an application that actually shows the text, finding an image won't help.--Phil Holmes (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apple encryption controversy - do they have a back door or not?

I am mystified by this news story. If Apple has a way to decrypt the phone messages, then that's what I in plain(ish) English would call a backdoor already present, and their claim not to have one would be a lie. If Apple doesn't have a way to decrypt the messages, then what can they do? Can someone explain? Wnt (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to say that you assume facts not in evidence, namely that the court knows what it's doing. Assuming Apple's security design is sound, they could just as well order Mark Hamill to telepathically extract the keyphrase from the owner, or, at that, to build a perpetuum mobile. But I suspect this is mostly theatre trying to help pass laws against strong encryption - which are pointless against hardened criminals (who will just use their own software), but might help catching small fry and thus inflating "success" rates for law enforcement, at the cost of privacy and security of the population at large. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this public letter, CEO Tim Cook says "Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession."

Many key questions were never addressed: could anyone create that software, which does not exist today? By extension, ... could Apple create that software, if ordered by a court? Could Mark Hamill create that software, if ordered by a court? May a Federal court in the United States legally order somebody to do an impossible task? Who decides whether a task is impossible?

I am not certain these hypothetical questions could be answered without delving into some very fascinating semantics about the definitions of "yes" and "no" in law, philosophy, and engineering. Nimur (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, Apple can create the software because they have the signing key for OS updates, while Mark Hamill does not. -- BenRG (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating choice of words! If you are very certain about such facts as you presume, you could volunteer your services as an expert witness to the United States attorneys, whose telephone contact information are published in the court order linked below... But I wonder if that context would put your mind into a state where you might cast a little bit of doubt on such assertions. You wouldn't feel any doubt in the certainty of your presumptions, even if you were sworn under oath and threatened with perjury? There isn't even the tiniest reasonable doubt in your mind because you don't know all the facts? Perhaps some things are impossible? Perhaps the veracity of important facts aren't decided solely on the basis of presumption? Nimur (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was an educated guess, based on my knowledge of computer security, and was correct. Compare that to your two posts in this subthread. But thank you for posting a link to the original court order. -- BenRG (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this BBC article, Apple are being asked to disable the feature which deletes the data stored on the phone if more than ten incorrect passwords are entered. This is to let the FBI brute-force the password (which is only four digits in this case). Tevildo (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) That article seems to be a really poor explaination of the actual court order. This [1] has a better explaination including highlighting the actual court order at the end. Basically the FBI wants to be able to brute force the password quickly and without having to worry about the device erasing itself. As to whether Apple can actual help or not I can't say. Even if the device has OTA updates enabled, I would be surprised if Apple can update the phone unless it's unlocked but I don't know that much about Apple's security model. (If it can be updated, it will definitely help to have Apple's help. Not just because they have the source code but also because it will be difficult to update without Apple's help given the update security.) And even if it can be updated, I'm a bit surprised they didn't implement any timing limitations and wiping into the security chip itself (i.e. the chip will slow things down and count tries to wipe the key) such that it's not dependent on the firmware. (I think the 10 tries thing is optional so it obviously can be disable but it doesn't mean it can be disabled when it's enabled and the device hasn't been unlocked.) But again I don't know that much about Apple's security model. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The iOS Security Guide whitepaper, published by Apple, presents a detailed look at the security model for iOS devices. Nimur (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I am a potato. Clue level 0. I am probably wrong. Ignore me please.
Comment: I think that is is possible to have cryptographic weaknesses built-in. This way you do not have to create a backdoor. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, it's looking to me like the "strong encryption" isn't really. If people are using a 4- or 6-digit passcode, obviously brute force is a possibility. The defense against that, according to the iOS 9 manual linked above, is "The passcode is entangled with the device’s UID, so brute-force attempts must be performed on the device under attack. A large iteration count is used to make each attempt slower. The iteration count is calibrated so that one attempt takes approximately 80 milliseconds. This means it would take more than 5½ years to try all combinations of a six-character alphanumeric passcode with lowercase letters and numbers" And then there are also escalating penalties for wrong answers. But the thing is, an iteration count, having the software loop through NOPs or something, is a meaningless protection when the software can be updated to get rid of it. Apple is protesting so loudly because indeed they are being forced to admit it's a meaningless protection and the "strong crypto" can be trivially cracked, if some value for iteration_count is altered in a signed upgrade. And presumably the federal government will keep hold of that signed upgrade for future use...

The proper approach of course is to use something like bcrypt that genuinely requires the time it takes to process a brute force hack, rather than simply telling the processor to spin its hamster wheel a while.

Please correct me if I'm wrong... Wnt (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have no real evidence the software can be updated in that way. As I pointed out above, the best way to do this would be for it all to be done in the security chip and for there to be no way to change values in to the security chip until it enters itself in to the unlocked state. And for it to only be in unlocked state when it has received the proper passphrase and generated the correct decryption key. It may that Apple doesn't do it this way, I'm not sure. (I only skimmed through the document, it sort of suggested that these functionality is supposed to be part of the security chip or Security Enclave or whatever which was what I thought before this controversy came about, but it may be I've misunderstood.) By the same token, it shouldn't really be possible to update the OS when the device remains locked. (And again, I see something in the manual which suggests this is the case.)

Also I don't think you really understand how Apple's iOS updates work. With modern devices and iOS versions, The signatures for updates are device specific. [2] [3] You can't just take a signed update for your friends device, even if it's the exact same model etc. This is fairly well known because it means you can't generally update to an older version of iOS even if it's newer than the version you have as Apple only signs the updates for an old version for few weeks after they release a new version. At least with older versions, you could record a signature for your device while Apple was still signing that version and then use it to upgrade/downgrade to that version, but I believe they've stopped this on newest versions. This limitations is fairly significant for those who want to jailbreak since jailbreaks bugs are often fixed fairly fast and so you only have a short timeframe where you can update to a jailbreakable version while the jailbreak is public. (You obviously can do so before, but won't have a jailbroken device until a public jailbreak is released.)

Of course this part of the signing is automatic, i.e. it doesn't involve several people entering parts of a key that only they know and/or is stored in some super secure safe in Apple HQ. So it may be that some governments have already broken it. However anyone who hasn't broken this part of the update mechanism will need either Apple's cooperation or find some otherway to force an update regardless of what Apple has signed before. (I presume the basic signing of the updates does involve people entering parts of a key only they know.) In any case, the rapid release and adoption of new devices means that software is not going to be that useful after 2 years or so unless it tells however is looking at it how to hack the same thing in to future versions (but in the case signatures become moot). In other words, I think your overestimating how useful a signed probably is.

BTW, I don't really understand your bcrypt point. Apple has designed their encryption such that it takes 80 milliseconds on their devices. I don't see any indication they are using NOP or anything of that sort to achieve this 80 millisecond figure, that seems fairly unlikely. Instead they are performing multiple iterations of the encryption function to slow things down. Obviously different devices will be able to perform the decryption at different speeds, but they've attempted to design the system so that you can't perform the decryption on a different system. (Or rather you can, but you'd be bruteforcing the whole encryption key rather than just the passphrase used to recover the encryption key which is generated based on a unique ID in combination with the passphrase.) And in any case that's always the way such things work. At best you can design your function so it's more difficult to speed up with certain clases of devices. (Which is partly what bcrypt tries to do.)

They could obviously increase the iteration count or otherwise modify the encryption to reduce speed, but I presume they chose the current speed based on what they felt would give an acceptable speed vs security tradeof. (I'm not sure if the iteration count on the device or it's built in to the chip. But even if it's not built in, modifying it after you device is encrypted, even if this is possible, is simply going to mean you're not actually likely to succeed in getting the right key since you're no longer using the same encryption function.)

For additional protection, they attempt to slow down repeated attempts. This will be implemented via NOPs or some other timing function, but there's no way you can make multiple attempts slower other than by slowing down the whole thing. And as already said, they surely chose the value they felt gave the based security-speed tradeof.

To put it a different way, I actually agree Apple probably doesn't want people to know what they can do, but mostly for different reasons from you.

P.S. Let's not forget even with bcrypt many or perhaps even most are going to use multiple iterations, the number of which will depend again on what sort of speed-security tradeof whoever is implementing it feels is best.

P.P.S. Obviously when the device is in the unlocked state, anyone with sufficient control & access could silently turn off any security features that can be turned off. They could likely steal all important parts of the encryption function too. But I think it's fairly well accepted if you've gone someone sufficient control over an unlocked device, you might as well assume they can do whatever they want no matter how hard the vendor tries to stop this. The big question is what is "sufficient control".

P.P.P.S. Ultimately whatever protections you build in, even if it's all internal to the security chip, it may still be possible to de-encapsulate the chip and find some way to modify any values that way. So you have to assume anyone with sufficient resources and technical skill will be able to find a way around stuff like timing limitations and automatic deletions after sufficient failures.

I probably should also mention that while you can try to prevent updates, obviously whatever part is running is not encrypted. If it is partly in a different chip, you must be able to change this. Worst case you can change the chip. However this gets back to the earlier point. If everything important is in the security chip, whatever you change in the other unecrypted chip isn't going to achieve anything. You still need to get the security chip to quickly test your multiple attempts and not enforce any internally set limits. You could try to speed up the encryption chip, at the risk of destroying something if it can't handle this.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Your version definitely seems more plausible than mine... the thing is, your version leads to the conclusion that Apple literally cannot crack the data on the phone, at least not unless they're in the business of deencapsulating and cracking chips for the FBI. So even though you know several orders of magnitude more about this stuff than I do, if we see the data being handed over to the FBI in the next few weeks or months we'll know I was right anyway. Or is that also wrong? Wnt (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The San Jose Mercury News has published the text of the court order from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; it can be found on several of their articles today, including this editorial Apple is right; opening cell phone encryption would be disastrous, or via this direct link to a 3rd-party provider, Order compelling Apple, Inc., to assist agents in search. Nimur (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The response from Apple is strange. The police going to a judge and presenting evidence to justify a search is how the system is supposed to work. It has nothing to do with warrantless mass surveillance. Big corporations including Apple comply with courts' demands for user data all the time (emails, call logs, etc.). The letter argues that there's a slippery slope from enabling this particular search to enabling mass surveillance, but that's exactly as true here as anywhere else: a landlord unlocking someone's apartment so the FBI can search it with a valid warrant, minus the warrant, times N, equals a police state and the death of freedom. If Apple was technically incapable of complying with the order they could have just told the court that, and surely would have, so it seems very likely that they can do it. Maybe they think it's better PR to fight the system than to admit that they have root on iOS devices, and since they're Apple maybe it is. If Microsoft did this, reporters would probably concentrate on the it's-a-lawful-court-order-not-mass-surveillance-big-corporations-now-have-veto-power-over-the-government angle. -- BenRG (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The landlord example isn't quite right - it's more like a homeowner destroying the key to their house, and the FBI asking for a master key to all houses to get in. Yes, it's the only way to get into that house, but it also gives the FBI the potential to go into any other house at a later time. An alternative court order could force Apple themselves to recover the data (with suitable confidentiality measures) and turn it over, rather than proving the FBI with the brute force attack, which would me more akin to ordering a locksmith to open the house (the house still gets opened, but the FBI don't hold a master key). MChesterMC (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Apple had to supply a signed OS build to the FBI, they could make it expire in a week so that it couldn't be used for future hacking, if what Nil Einne wrote above is correct. They could also blacklist it in a future update of everyone's phones.

Also, if it's really gotten to the point that our best hope for protecting ourselves from government surveillance is trying to keep them from getting ahold of lock picks, then I think we're doomed. I would rather focus on having a judiciary that doesn't rubber-stamp warrants and a legislature that doesn't pass patriotically named bills and an executive that doesn't classify every damn thing. That would also safeguard rights that can't be safeguarded by strong encryption, which is most of them. -- BenRG (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the court order actually specifically states that the software "will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that [it] would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE", and of course that is possible regardless of Apple's code signing system. So this is exactly analogous to giving the FBI a key to one specific apartment. The statement in Apple's open letter that "there is no way to guarantee" "that its use would be limited to this case" is false. I think the FBI and judge have done everything right here. -- BenRG (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I read that before (it was mentioned in the source I linked above) but forgot about it when commenting above. I'm not sure if this was mentioned elsewhere in this thread but I was reminded of it when reading the Register article: the court order doesn't even require that Apple hand over the modified firmware. It explicitly allows Apple to do it at their own facilities. So Apple should be able to stop the government from getting hold of this code, even if it was useful to them for other phones. "or alternatively, at an Apple facility; if the latter, Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT DEVICE through a computer allowing the government to conduct passcode recovery analysis". Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article which references this blog post. I am tempted to postulate some Laws of Commercial Crypto: 1) Companies always say your data is secure; 2) companies always leave themselves a way in; 3) governments always make them use it; 4) they always end up out in public arguing about whether they get paid for it, but both sides talk as if it were a matter of principle. Wnt (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everyone please read that article ("Apple Unlocked iPhones for the Feds 70 Times Before", by Shane Harris). -- BenRG (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an excellent article in The Register (copied from another ref desk thread). -- BenRG (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And one from Wired: Apple’s FBI Battle Is Complicated. Here’s What’s Really Going On. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And from Reason: The Encryption Fight We Knew Was Coming Is Here—and Apple Appears Ready --Guy Macon (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting thing albeit more on the legal-political than the technical side are these related stories of a different case [4] [5] [6]. I found the first stories (or similar stories) when researching this story, it's only a few days before the current one. [7] suggest the meth case may have partly been the catalyst for Apple's new stance and it's possble it will be resolved before this one. (The other catalysts may be the introduction of full storage encryption. And Apple's reluctance to let people know of any weaknesses along with their desire to distance themselves from the government after the Snowden inspired controversies even if that includes cases where that help is requested by warrants.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (or I guess thanks to the thread below since I read it there first). I did wonder whether it was an older less secure iPhone and that article confirm it. Being a 5c is perhaps a key point here since it doesn't have Security Enclave which enforces the rate limiting internally. It does suggest it may be possible for Apple to disable the limiting even in the Security Enclave. I still think barring bugs (and to be fair, as jailbreaking and experience in so many other places have shown, they are often there), Apple would want to prevent this in locked devices but I'm far from an expert. As a case in point, it sounds like being able to update the bootloader even when the device is locked is indeed a feature not a bug whereas as I said above to me it seems it should be disabled. Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript graphics tools

What are good Javascript tools for creating plots from text data for inclusion on web pages? Ideally, I'm looking for something that can offer options such as line graphs, bar graphs, scatter plots, and error bars. A high level of control over presentation and formatting would be preferred. Dragons flight (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dragons flight: Lazy potatoes like myself use this. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's also d3.js ---- LongHairedFop (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have used Chart.js, but I needed to modify it extensively to meet my specific requirements. Nimur (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the pointers. Dragons flight (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SQL, and RD (MySQL\SQLite) differnece in simple words

Can someone please explain, in the most simple words possible:

1. what is actually the difference between SQL to Relational Databases such as MySQL or SQLite?

2. Why do we need a RD if we have SQL and PHPmyadmin on our server... ?

Thx Ben-Yeudith (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First we'll need to clarify what you are asking. Technically, SQL stands for "Structured Query Language", a programming language which is used to access and manipulate data stored in a relational database. It can be used with many types of RDBMS, such as IBM DB2, Oracle, MySQL, and others. Perhaps, though, you are using "SQL" as a term for something different? I have heard it used as a name for Microsoft SQL Server. phpMyAdmin is a tool specifically for administration of MySQL; there would be no reason to have phpMyAdmin without also having MySQL installed. --LarryMac | Talk 19:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that SQL is a programming language used to write DB's from scratch (and of course, manipulate existing ones written with it). Suryly I didn't mean to RDBMS-manipualtion GUI like PHPmyadmin... I think I do need to sharpen my understanding of the difference between SQL, and RDBMS

SQL is a language for querying (and modifying) relational databases, not to write a Database Management System. When you "buy database software", you typically get the code and a license for a DBMS (which nowadays most often is a Relational DBMS, or RDBMS). The DBMS is most usually written is a system programming language, like C or C++, or a combination of both. MySQL or MariaDB or Oracle are DBMSs. You then use SQL to put the actual database (i.e. the structured data) into the system. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Database transactions

At work, I have to develop a .NET C# program that reads in files from a directory, extracts data from them and inserts it to a database.

Each file contains its own independent set of data and the files don't affect each other. Each file's data must be atomic, in other words if the processing of a file somehow fails, I can't have the database ending up with only part of the file's data. So therefore I have to use transactions.

Now, the program is called from an external framework that automatically opens a database connection for it at the beginning and closes it at the end. I can do database commands on that connection as I please. I figured I have to begin a new transaction every time I read in a new file.

Are the transactions independent from each other? In other words, if I commit or rollback a transaction, it won't affect anything done to the database before the last commit or rollback?

And is there any way of doing immediate operations on the same connection at the same time, or is everything I do in the database on this connection now part of a transaction?

When I read data from the database, the read operation should see the state of the database since I last committed a transaction, right? JIP | Talk 18:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at our ACID article, but this is a topic that can easily get very involved. I'll try to give you some general answers below.

When transactions are run sequentially (begin...commit, begin...rollback, begin...commit) they are independent of one another, and each will see the results of any previous committed transactions. If a transaction is rolled-back, the results will be as if no changes were performed during that transaction, but previously committed transactions are not affected. (This is the "Atomicity" of ACID.)
If you perform any other operations on the same connection, those operations will have full access to pending changes (even though they are not yet committed), and any new changes will be part of that same transaction. You can open a second connection to perform operations independent of the transaction created in the first connection. For example, you might use a second connection to log activity so that it will persist even if the transaction in the first connection is rolled-back.
However, when working with multiple connections, locks may come into play (part of the "Isolation" aspect of ACID), and any attempt by the second connection to access uncommitted data from the first transaction may be blocked until the first transaction is either committed or rolled-back. If the blocked process is the same as the one that opened the original transaction, you will create a deadlock. (There are many advanced aspects of locking that are too involved to go into here.)
When you read back from the database, you will see all committed data, plus any pending changes created by the same connection. As mentioned before, any attempts to access uncommitted data from a different connection may be blocked. There are ways around this though - see "Read uncommitted", "Transaction Isolation Level" or "NOLOCK", but again, that is a bit much to try to cover here.

I hope this helps. It sounds like that you will want to use transactions to handle your "real" data, but may perhaps want to use a separate independent connection to handle progress and error logging or other "metadata" activities. -- Tom N talk/contrib 05:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can I remove Mozilla from my appdata if windows crashes or fails to delete it?

I installed the Avira antivirus after earlier suggestions on this desk, when I had had to uninstall (over a week ago) Firefox, which kept crashing, and AVG which would not complete installing.

Running Avira I got the message that there are 5547 hidden files such as:

c:\users\user\appdata\local\mozilla\firefox\profiles\m5g74v4v.default\cache2\entries\3ba89d828ff397d4761d35bd90f9749ce144927d [NOTE] The file is not visible.

On line instructions say to type %appdata% into the search field at the start button (I am using Windows 7) and then delete the Mozilla folder. When I do this, except for the deleting files notification, with the spinning blue wheel of death, the rest of the computer is frozen. After about 10 minutes I get an error message saying files could not be deleted. (The same thing happens if I try to delete the subfiles piecemeal.)

Are there any ways to address this? A program that will delete intransigent files? a command prompt? (If there is a command prompt I will need verbatim instructions, as I am not certain when working with that.) I am about to try booting in sfae mood. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you in an unsafe mood right now? If so, I don't feel comfortable answering your question. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden files aren't necessarily bad. They're hidden because they are boring, not because they are malicious. Most Firefox related problems can be solved by "refreshing" it. This will create a new profile folder. Extensions and themes, website permissions, modified preferences, added search engines, download history, DOM storage, security certificate and device settings, download actions, plugin settings, toolbar customizations, user styles and social features will be removed. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in safe mode now, nor was I when I made the post above. As soon as I made the post above I rebooted in safe mode, but still got the circle of death when I tried deleting those files.

If it helps, the timeline is:

1) My computer was crashing and freezing on jan 15, and I got two blue screen errors

2) I reinstalled from the recovery discs

3) late on jan 16 I re-installed Firefox, my favorite browser for most uses

4) I was unable to reinstall AVG 2016 or 2015, it stopped at 92% installed

5) Firefox was causing me to power off so many times I uninstalled it

6) I uninstalled AVG, which said it was running, but kept getting errors, and could not run windows defender

7) I made an offline disk of windows defender, it found spurious Mozilla files on my c drive.

8) I removed those Mozilla files, but still had no working antivirus, since Windows Defender kept deactivating itself.

9) I installed Avira last night, and rean it overnight. It found 5547 hiddem items, all to do with a Mozilla/Firefox directory address.

10) Since I do not now hafe Firfox installed, I cannot 'refresh" it, although I assume you mean either update it or go back to factory stings.

At this point I am rebooting with Windows Defender Off Line to see if it will help, but I am still curious what I should be looking for in a way to get those invisinle files removed. Then I can concentrate on whatever other files are left. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to remove the files. The pathname you provided is that of a file belonging to Firefox's cache. This is perfectly benign; Web browsers save things locally in a cache to speed up your browsing experience. (If you really want to learn more, plug "Firefox profile" into a search engine to learn all about the contents of Firefox's profile directory.) With that said, it is perfectly acceptable to delete Firefox's cache; caches are temporary and the content is intended to get deleted eventually. You shouldn't be having any issues deleting the files if your system is functioning normally. This plus your other issues indicates there is a problem with your system. My hunch is it's a hardware issue, such as your hard drive being on its last legs, but it's possible it could be an operating system problem. A good way to do a differential diagnosis is to boot to a Live CD (or "live DVD", "live USB drive", whatever) and use it for a while. Try deleting things from Firefox's cache from the live CD environment. If everything goes smoothly, it's an operating system issue, and the best solution is probably to just do a factory reset of the computer. If you still have issues in the Live CD environment, it's a hardware problem. Also a good thing to do is to back up any files on your system you care about, if you haven't already done so. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to try command mode, then you get to it from Start -> Run ... then type "cmd" (without the quotes) to get the black screen.

Then type "cd c:\users\user\appdata\local\mozilla\firefox\profiles\m5g74v4v.default\cache2\entries" (without the quotes)

Then type "dir" to see all the files (though they might not be visible?)

Then type "del *.*"

Then type "dir" again to see if the files have all gone.

Then type "exit" to get back to windows.

This probably won't work because the DOS in Windows 7 is not real DOS but just an emulator running under Windows. Dbfirs 23:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The fact that there are hidden files in Mozilla's profile folder is normal (they are hidden because they are boring, not because they are malicious). Its weird that both Windows Defender and Avira detect them, maybe your browser cache contains something bad (but that doesn't necessarily mean that you were infected). If you are afraid that you may have a virus then I recommend installing MalwareBytes Anti-Malware and ESET Smart Security. If you want to delete certain files, but can't (you should be able to delete them after restarting your computer) then I recommend "FileASSASSIN". Its made by the MalwareBytes people. Malware rarely causes a Blue Screen of Death, it is far more likely that that is an indication that a driver is misconfigured or that hardware is about to fail. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with TQP above that those files are harmless. I have lots of them, but I'm able to see them and delete them from Windows. If you can't, then something like File Assassin (above) should be able to do the removal. They should have been deleted when you uninstalled Firefox, so it looks as though something went wrong with that, or possibly you have a glitch in the File Allocation Table, so try running "chkdsk". Dbfirs 00:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the best person to be giving ideas here, but I'm thinking (a) if there's a disk issue it should show up if you go to "view event logs" (check the warnings... for some reason every time I've had something really bad, it comes up as a warning). Knowing exactly when you tried to delete the files gives you an advantage finding the problem in that pile of stuff. Also, I'd say just open the Task Manager and see if there's a Firefox/Mozilla process of some type running before you try to delete, just in case they're merely "in use". Wnt (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of dir use attrib to check fpr hidden files. Note m5g74v4v.default are random characters. See whats You computer profils' random string is. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 20:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! chdsk found and fixed three damaged sectors (or whatever they are called) and these sectors had the Mozilla (and AVG) files that were not erased when those programs were uninstalled. After chkdsk was run, I was able to delete those files, and the computer is behaving a lot better. I am going to do a clean install of AVG and Firefox this weekend, after some important projects are completed, just in case there is still some other issue. I'll post the results then if this thread is still alive. Thanks to everyone who helped above! μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's good for now, but bad sectors are generally a sign that your drive is at death's door. I would just go ahead and replace it. Also if you aren't backing up your data regularly now's a great time to start! --71.119.131.184 (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely use regular backups, and if chkdsk gives more errors next week, then replace the drive. You might like to make a recovery image now, if you don't already have one, just in case. I have known drives to last for years after the odd chkdsk bad sector error, but the risk might or might not be worth it. Dbfirs 16:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capturing HTML output of Atom XML formatter

Dear Wikipedians:

How do I capture the HTML output of Atom CSS formatted XML RSS feed output as shown in the screenshot below:

into an HTML file?

Thanks,

L33th4x0r (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would use XSLT. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steps to encrypt your emails?

I have generated a pair of RSA cryptographic keys using ssh-keygen and installed enigmail. I tried to import the former into the latter, but the add-on asks me for a PKCS-12. How should I transform the keys into this format, if at all?

And after that, how do people normally share their public keys? Do they put them on a site? They send them through email? Exchange them in person? --Llaanngg (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is enigmail normally uses gpg (GnuPG). I don't know if there's a way to have it use ssh keys. If you install gpg and generate your public/private keys using that tool, then enigmail should just work. As to how to exchange public keys, any of your three options will work. Remember that there is no security risk in sharing or exposing your public key. If I need to send private email to someone whose public key I don't have, I just email them and ask them to email their public key to me. It doesn't matter if the email is intercepted. Conversely if someone else needs your public key, you can get it from gpg via "gpg --armor --export my.email.address" and send them the output. Mnudelman (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What if your outbound email gets intercepted and the attacked send you his public key impersonating your contact? That's kind of paranoid, but how can you know that a public key belongs to a concrete person? --Llaanngg (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well yes, if you're concerned about someone impersonating your contact you do need to take further steps. Gpg supports a "web of trust" system, so that if someone you trust sends you someone else's public key, you can let gpg know that you now trust that key. See [8] and [9]. Mnudelman (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can also verify the key fingerprint over a different channel, such as a phone call. -- BenRG (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give my thoughts on one of the OPs questions, "how do people normally share their public keys?" Due to the minuscule uptake of email encryption by the general public, exchanging encrypted email with a random person on very short notice is just not feasible. Realistically, you can only exchange encrypted emails with someone you already know; you would have to have a discussion about what method you both have access to. Factors to include are the many people who use web email with no encryption capability, quite a few people can't afford a Microsoft Office license, many people can't afford a Adobe Acrobat license, and many people work in a corporate environment where they are not allowed to install software on the computer assigned to them. So an encryption method acceptable to all correspondents must be found before you can even begin to talk about exchanging keys. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, convincing others to send and accept encrypted mails seems to be the biggest problem here. Unless one of the big email services force users to use end-to-end encryption I don't see how this situation could change any time soon. Llaanngg (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 18

Adding memory

We have several computers around here, i5s and i7s. The manual on most of them say that they can take four 4GB DIMMs. One of them is a HP 8200 Elite SFF i5-2400. The manual says that it can take four 4GB DIMMs but the Crucial and Kingston websites say that it can take four 8GB DIMMs. I don't think that any of the others are like that. Will a computer designed for 4GB DIMMs generally support 8GB DIMMs? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it will be a waste of resources, since your computer won't be able to address the bigger RAM. I'd stick with the official manual, and not follow Crucial or Kingston advise. It won't toast your motherboard though. Maybe the computer just does not boot. --Scicurious (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will respectfully disagree with the above. It's unlikely the system won't be able to "address the memory space" (assuming you are using a 64bit operating system, which anything using over 4GB total should be anyway). Motherboard manuals TYPICALLY will list the 'supported' memory, this means the manufacturer has performed stress tests and compatibility tests with THOSE specific memory chips. It does NOT mean that other memory will "not" work. In fact, if when the motherboard came out, 4GB was the biggest RAM chip you could get, it's quite likely a motherboard manufacturer will not bother to go back to test an old board just because 8GB sticks are now available (it's not likely to sell them any more old motherboards, if in fact they are even still for sale). CONVERSELY when a new memory chip comes out, it IS in the interest of the memory manufacturer to make sure that their chip works with as many mother boards as possible (that WILL sell them more memory chips) so they quite probably WILL test older motherboards with their new chips. SO, if kingston or cruicial say their chips will work with your motherboard, I would very much take their word for it. Vespine (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement. RAM limit (Wikipedia:WHAAOE) depends on other factors too. There is a CPU addressing limit. There is no reason to have a CPU able to address more memory for no reason. The 64bit OS is indifferent here. More lines are simply not wired to the memory controller.Scicurious (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with Vespine here. It's true there's no guarantee that a larger RAM size is going to work. Although this rarely has anything to do with lines not being wired to the memory controller, but instead what the memory controller supports, the CPU (seperate from any IMC), the actual DIMM design (for most forms of DDR sticks there can generally be multiple types of 8GB RAM sticks with different levels of compatibility) and sometimes also BIOS/EFI issues. Motherboard manuals are not always reliable on what the motherboard actually supports and in this case the memory controller is on the CPU which supports up to 32GB [10] although Intel hasn't really kept their sockets around for very long recently and I'm not sure if there was ever any real difference in IMC supported amount of RAM. (But it's only dual channel and AFAIK it's not really possible to support more than 2 sticks per channel on an LGA1155 platform which implies it must support some sort of 8GB sticks.) Anyway, if a major RAM seller is claiming that a major system does support their 8GB sticks, it likely does since most RAM sellers like these do provide some sort of money back guarantee so they tend to try and get that stuff right and it's likely someone has already tried it. If it's a fairly unknown system or a weird config, it's possible the info from the RAM seller could simply be wrong, but probably not here. Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, while I have no idea what manual the OP is looking at, this manual for the same system explicitly mentions 8GB stick support [11] "The largest memory capacity possible is 32GB using four (4) 8GB DIMMs". It doesn't list 8GB sticks in any of the sample configs, probably because 8GB sticks suitable for a system like this (i.e. unbufferred) didn't really exist when it was written or if they did HP Compaq didn't sell them as standard components but it's obviously at least claiming theoretical support. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is the document at which I was looking, but I missed that line. I was looking in the table on page 12 where it shows 16GB maximun. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the whole issue is probably not a big deal. Crucial's forum already has a post about it: [12]. It is almost sure a case of a not updated manual (in OP's hand) vs. the updated DB of Crucial. That's also why Nil Einne found the figure of 8GB when he looked it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llaanngg (talk • contribs) 18:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can I watch Hulu In Canada?

Please tell me. 208.181.190.136 (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use a VPN. --Scicurious (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, there is no non-technical way to do so. Hulu is not officially available in Canada. Mingmingla (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using a VPN is no longer a guarantee at all that a regional online streaming service will work, or will continue to work. Most such streaming services, including hulu and netfix, explicitly forbid using VPN services to bypass regional restrictions in their terms and conditions and DO enforce various levels of blocks and bans against users who they discover or detect using such services. Vespine (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

out of range

am trying to install Win 7 on a Pc its P4 but wen i press the boot frm cd room key, a message Resolution not supported comes out on another moniter a message Out of range pops up,wat do i do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.79.9.249 (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the monitor doesn't support the screen resolution it uses for the install. If you have another monitor, you might try that. StuRat (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Macintosh LC

Why was the Macintosh LC a significant product of technology in 1990? Please write up to 3000 words explaining your answer and submit your paper by 03/03/16 to Mr Turnbull's office. --Finderoomertæs (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to provide references and sources. --Finderoomertæs (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can't tell if you're being facetious - but we will not do your homework. We will gladly volunteer our efforts to help you, though. Some of our reference desk researchers might even, you know, be good resources. Nimur (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have Macintosh LC, I think... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished and submitted the paper. The response I received from Turnbull's office was that they had no idea why I sent them a paper on the 1990's significance of the Macintosh LC but if I did it again Turnbull will ask Key to pull my pony tail. Not wanting that, I've deleted my paper. Nil Einne (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only read "I have a pony tail" - that's surprising new information! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our RD powers do enable us to identify the OP's Mr Turnbull - his office is number 3xxE. Not that we would reveal the value of "xx", of course. Tevildo (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the FBI need Apple's help?

Being the FBI in possession of that iPhone, couldn't they just clone it bit by bit, literally, and test passwords on each clone? Obviously there is something here hindering this, but what is it? How can a storage medium block being copied? --Llaanngg (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Register has some well-informed speculation. [13] ---- LongHairedFop (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a good overview, and there's another one above in this same page. However, the question is more about storage hardware that does not let being copied 1-to-1. I wonder how this is possible. Couldn't they just disassemble the device and read the storage with another controller? --Llaanngg (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

iPhones use whole-disk encryption, which is protected by the user's passcode. Even if the flashdrive is copied to another iPhone, it is useless without the passcode. LongHairedFop (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can copy the flashdrive to other iPhones, you could test more passwords on them (which are 4-6 numbers long). But there is obviously something that makes this impossible. --Llaanngg (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In short, there is some piece of hardware that is designed to be difficult to clone, which holds a secret, and all other data is encrypted with a key derived from that secret. In most computers that hardware would be the TPM. In the iPhone 5c it's (a part of) the Apple A6 SoC. The A6 likely authenticates the first-stage boot code (which authenticates the next stage and so on), meaning there's no way to run unsigned password-forcing code. Even if it doesn't, it would probably be risky to inject a modified first-stage boot loader into the irreplaceable phone. -- BenRG (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Llaanngg, the passcodes on iPhones can be longer than 4-6 characters. Even if the limit were 4 numbers, that's still 10,000 different passcodes that it could be. That's either a lot of iPhones that the FBI would have to buy (assuming that copying everything over to a different phone is even possible) or a smaller number with a lot of erasing of failed phones and reloading of the data. Dismas|^(talk) 00:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The newer models have longer passwords, but in this case it is a iPhone 6, which has passwords which are 4-6 numerical characters long.

If it were possible to erase and reload the information to a new phone, the question would be how long would it take to accomplish this reset. You can try 10 passwords until the phone deletes the information. So, in worst case 1,000 load, erase and rinse cycles. But apparently some piece of hardware was made difficult to be cloned. Llaanngg (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether it might be worth saying that "reading" a memory chip is unlike reading a hard disk. You can't just point a read head at it and extract the bit values one by one. In silicon memory, you have to rely on the (usually) integrated memory controller to read and write values in and out of the memory. The memory controller has its own firmware which can be as "open" or "locked" as the designer wants. Clearly in the case of the iPhone, it's quite "locked" down. The difference is that Apple could us a special digital signature that only they have to load a special firmware during boot up before the phone normally lets anyone run any code. Vespine (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is surely worth (at least for me). Llaanngg (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a nit but it's actually a iPhone 5C as pointed out in the first link in this section. But it could still have the latest iOS on it. Dismas|^(talk) 00:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. Anyway, it was not the last model. Llaanngg (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on what I believe BenRG was saying, each phone has a hardware module that stores a unique key. The disk is then encrypted using a combination of that unique key and the user's password. It shouldn't be hard to copy the physical contents of the iPhone storage, but trying to decrypt those contents without the corresponding hardware module is much harder than trying all possible 4 or 6 digit passcodes because you also have to consider all possible versions of the unknown hardware key. I don't know how long the unique hardware key on an iPhone is but the computer equivalent TPM has a built-in 2048-bit (256 bytes) hardware key. Trying to decrypt the storage without the hardware key would be far harder (virtually impossible) so one pretty much has to use the same phone to decrypt its contents. Dragons flight (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 19

Installing utorrent on linux

How do I install utorrent on Linux? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me has a question (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have some good advice: don't use uTorrent. Get another torrent client. Here is info on how to install the torrent client Deluge on Linux (specifically Debian or Ubuntu distro's). Deluge is a free, open source software. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which Linux distribution are you using? The package manager will let you install additional applications; there should be several torrent clients available. 62.56.67.192 (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 20

/\ in proof of Ardens Theorem means?

Could anyone tell what does the symbol '/\' mean in the proof of Arden's Theorm given here(P.18).

NB:'/\' doesn't mean the regular expression written as '^'.Here '/\' is an element of R as given in this book(P.127).

JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It stands for the empty word, more often written as ε. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 10 on a slower PC

I have one computer running Win7 on an AMD dual-core 64-bit processor rated at 1.6 GHz, 4 GB of RAM. It's used only for email and basic browsing, and its speed is on the slow side of borderline. Generally speaking, would you expect Win10 to be a little faster, roughly the same, or a little slower? If the latter, I'll leave it on 7 for the remainder of its life.
The computer clearly meets the minimum system requirements for running 10, but "run" is not the same as "run well", and I'm looking for "run well". It also meets the requirements for Win7, but as I said I'm not entirely happy with the performance. I don't want to make it worse. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with several old PCs (Intel 3.X Mhz dual-core, 8-16GB RAM, 64-bit Win7 vs. 64-bit Win10) is that Win10 was just a bit faster, but they were close. This review found the same thing. I also found that, on both Win7 and Win10, going from 4GB to to 8GB made a big difference, but going to 16GB didn't do much. Also, replacing the rotating disk with a SSD made a big difference.

You can get Dell Optiplex 780, Dual core@3.33GHz, 8GB RAM, 500GB HDD, Win7 Pro 64-Bit for well under $200.[14] You have until 29 July 2016 to load and install the free Win7 to Win10 upgrade. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make the PC faster, it is probably more efficient to clean it up a bit (and maybe even buy some RAM, old RAM is very cheap if you go to a second-hand store). Autoruns and Defraggler may be useful. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 21

Name generators

Are there any reliable secondary sources out there that discuss name generators (such as http://FakeNameGenerator.com) in any kind of detail? Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Markov text generators might get you started. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 13:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What naming scheme(s) does Wikipedia use? Is it structured, flat (unstructured), or, attribute based?

I'm learning distributed systems and one of the topic is naming. So I'm wondering what naming scheme(s) does Wikipedia use? Is it structured, flat (unstructured), or, attribute based? Do other web services also use the same naming scheme? I can't seem to find information on structured, flat, or, attribute-based naming scheme on Wikipedia. Could you please point me into the direction of finding the information? Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.87.54.73 (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "scheme". The relevant policy is at WP:TITLE. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger67: I think he’s asking about technical behind-the-scenes details, not about how we choose the human-friendly article titles. I’m not sure if the question is even applicable to Wikipedia (I don’t know much about distributed systems), but I know our revisions are identified by a simple incrementing number, currently in the hundreds of millions. So, I guess that would make it flat. But for naming the articles (for public use; I don’t know if they have a different identifier behind the scenes), we have namespaces like “WIkipedia:”, “Help:”, “Template:”, and a “talk” namespace for each of them. We have e.g. an article named Wikipedia and a project page named Wikipedia:Wikipedia. I’m not sure if that makes it structured. Hope that helps, though I don’t know if I gave you any new information. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the early days, Wikipedia articles had names like "Namibia/Economy" and "Namibia/History" and the software understood that those were child articles of "Namibia" (which is structured naming), but now those articles are called "Economy of Namibia" and "History of Namibia" and there is no well defined hierarchy (which is flat naming). If you include pages in other namespaces like Talk: and Wikipedia:, the hierarchical names are still used (on this page, for example), and the namespace can also be seen as the top level of the hierarchy.

I've never heard the terms "flat naming" and "structured naming" outside of university courses, but that may be because I don't work in distributed systems. Wikipedia should probably cover them regardless. Someone just needs to write the article. -- BenRG (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now the names to refer to article sections would be "Namibia#Economy" and "Namibia#History". StuRat (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. What is being named in distributed systems? If the question pertains to the files on the project’s web servers or the way they’re networked, then none of us are qualified to answer it unless we’re familiar with Wikimedia’s backend, which has nothing to do with how articles are named. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

.MACOSX directory in zip file

I got some zipped lectures, and there were a __MACOSX directory with files like ._.DS_Store, and ._<name of the lecture>.mp4 inside. What is this?--Llaanngg (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It means the zip file was made on a Macintosh computer. You can safely ignore them. See superuser.com and Resource fork and .DS_Store for more info. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regexp's literal strings

Following regexp works for me:

 rename 's/(Chapt).(.*)/$2.$1er/' *

but in emacs, when I try to extract a pattern, and include the found group () into the target string, I have to do:

  \(Chapt\).\(.*$\) -> \2.\1er

and not:

  (Chapt).(.*$) -> \2.\1er

Why is it different? And why isn't  in emacs reserved for the case where you actually want to reuse the found pattern? --Scicurious (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emacs uses an older syntax for regular expressions (a combination of the POSIX basic and extended syntaxes) than Perl (the modern standard). The biggest change (for the common subset of functionality) is that you must escape (){} exactly when you must not for Perl. No regular expression system uses  to turn on (or off) capturing: you turn off capturing (where it's supported) with (?:…). In Emacs, you escape those parentheses with backslashes (just like for a capturing group). --Tardis (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Perl regexes "the modern standard" is a bit misleading. For one, they aren't standardized. Neither is PCRE, which means things that claim to support "PCREs" often have subtle incompatibilities with each other. It's a bit of a mess (insert xkcd comic about standards here). Yes, most of the time if you stick to the simpler PCRE features things will be portable, but don't assume it. Look at the documentation for whatever you're using. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)What you have encountered are some of the differences between the many flavors of regular expressions. As regular expression implementations have added features over the years, there have also been corresponding variations in the supported syntax, some of which are not compatible with one another. One early distinction was between the UNIX Basic Regular Expression (BRE) and Extended Regular Expression (ERE) syntax. (See Regular expression - POSIX basic and extended.) Emacs implements BREs (or some variant thereof), where only a few characters have special meaning when not escaped.

For more information and a comparison of syntax, I suggest you look at [15]. Set the drop-down flavor selectors to "POSIX BRE" "POSIX ERE" as a start, or select any other flavors that my be of interest. Syntax feature categories (Characters, basic features, quantifiers, ...) can be selected at the left. -- Tom N talk/contrib 01:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is also a good reference on regex syntax. Also note that "rename" is not a standardized Unix command, although a lot of people think it is. There are multiple programs called "rename" floating around out there, with incompatible syntax. See here for some more portable ways to rename files. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 22

Thomas edison

hello i need a reply as soon as possible for this, it is for a school assignmetn and iv beensearching for 1 hour now for the answer so i decided to make a post the answer i need help with is (Famous inventor) Thomas Edison. How is this persons name now used to describe or measure something in electronics.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buck Dunford (talk • contribs) 03:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many light bulbs have an Edison base (that's the wide screw threads at the bottom). Note that while our article features incandescent light bulb pics, many newer CFL and LED lights continue to use the same base. StuRat (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Thermionic emission also. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you refer to the Edison effect ? StuRat (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]